[boredhedgehog]

> They don't want people to see it because it will motivate copy cats.

The problem with that line of argument is that even if it's true, it undermines democracy. Democracy is based on the equality of all citizens. But you're segmenting people into two groups: those with superior intrinsic qualities and moral and intellectual strength that they can watch the problematic video without turning into copycats. People usually include themselves in that group and believe this group can work in the censorship office.

And then the other group, which is perceived as weak and in needs of protection (usually included: people we don't like).

Note that you must make the judgement who belongs in which group before anyone is allowed to see the problematic video. Note who makes the official judgment.

[lostlogin]

New Zealand has one of the strongest democracies on earth. It’s hard to square that reality with the fear that we are weakening it by blocking this sort of content. Arguing that we would have an even strong democracy if we could watch a video of that nut job shooting people is quite the claim. The killer has inspired other hate crimes, and I believe his video is a big part of his way of spreading his message.

Where is your line? What content is ok to block?

https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021/

https://apnews.com/article/australia-race-and-ethnicity-el-p...

[disordinary]

Yes, we have laws that's why we live in a society.

People that work in the censorship office don't make calls based on morals, that make calls based on policy, they also face mental health challenges and get the support needed to a look at this content without radicalising or breaking down.

While pushing for your right to view the video, you're also ignoring the rights of the victims. How is it that you're right is more important than theirs?